9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08-SM - Final Order No. 21347/2018 - Dated:- 10-9-2018 - MR. P DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. N. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: P DINESHA This is an assessee s appeal wherein the assessee has questioned the denial of refund of ₹ 11,20,539/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Nine only). Briefly stated, the facts relevant are that the appellant during the course of its activity of manufacturing of cigarettes, also manufactured Slides and Inner Frames for self consumption on which it had paid excess duty. Learned advocate appearing for the assessee during the course of his argument took me through the background wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) while endorsing that the duty paid on already cleared goods would not attract unjust enrichment , but, however, allowed the refund to a further extent of ₹ 17,02,145/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only) thereby denying the refund of ₹ 11,20,539/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Nine only) against which the present appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. N. Anand, advocate appeared for the appellant and Mr. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, DR for the Revenue. During the course of hearing, the learned advocate submitted that the partial denial of refund for the reason as given by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified since, according to the learned advocate, dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only); after considering the same the learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted a refund of ₹ 17,02,145/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only) after noting that for most part of the documents, the assessee was already granted refund in the first round of litigation. Learned DR further pointed out to paragraph 2 at page 24 of the appeal folder, which is the relevant portion of the order of this Bench in the first round of litigation, to emphasis that there was a direction to the appellant to establish its eligibility for refund which was rejected and that the same was not passed on to the consumer. With these, the learned DR vehemently contended that the appellant has in effect produced same set of the do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that assessee is willing to furnish all necessary documents in support of the refund of the balance amount. 5. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record, have gone through the decisions relied on by the learned advocate. From the directions issued by this Bench in the first round which has been extracted supra, I find that the appellant was directed to establish its eligibility and also the fact that they have not passed on the element of duty to the consumer, and as submitted by the learned Advocate, the said order has become final. 6. I therefore, deem it proper to give one more opportunity, in the interest of justice, to the appellant to go before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), comply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
